\ a-rn. 


// 


\. 

Coolidge  and  the  World 
Court 

By  FREDERICK  J.  LIBBY 


Just  the  Facts 
You  Want  to  Know 


cooltdge’s  stand 

WHO  OPPOSE  IT 
WHO  ENDORSE  IT 
WHAT  IT  IS 


$20  per  thousand 
$3  'per  hundred 
5 cents  a copy  postpaid 


National  Council  for  Prevention  of  War 
532  17th  St.  N.W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

First  Edition  Sept.  1,  1925;  Second  Edition  Sept.  10; 

Third  Edition  Sept.  24 


How  many  copies  of  this  pamphlet  will  you  distribute? 


The  material  in  this  pamphlet  is  from 
a peace  worker’s  handbook  which  will  he 
issued  in  October,  1925,  by  the  National 
Council  for  Prevention  of  War. 


NATIONAL  CAPITAL  PRESB,  INC.,  WASKINOTON,  0.  C. 


DECEMBER  17, 1925 

Last  March,  just  before  adjournment,  by  a non-partisan 
vote  of  77  to  2,  the  United  States  Senate,  after  over  two 
years’  delay,  appointed  December  17,  1925,  as  the  date  for 
beginning  what  is  expected  to  be  the  final  consideration  of 
the  long-delayed  Harding-Hughes-Coohdge  World  Court 
proposal. 

On  the  Senate  calendar  this  measure  figures  as  SENATE 
RESOLUTION  5.  It  is  also  called  the  SWANSON  RESO- 
LUTION, since  Senator  Swanson,  of  Virginia,  introduced  it. 
This  fact,  quite  apart  from  its  endorsement  in  the  platforms 
of  both  parties,  indicates  its  non-partisan  character,  since 
Senator  Swanson  is  a Democrat  and  the  measure  he  intro- 
duced is  the  product  of  two  Republican  administrations. 
“Party  politics  should  stop  at  the  3-mile  fimit.” 

The  Five  Reservations 

The  Swanson  Resolution  embodies  the  Harding  proposal 
of  adherence  to  the  Court  with  five  reservations.  The 
first  four  reservations  were  drawn  by  Secretary  Hughes. 
They  protect  us  from  inadvertently  joining  the  League  and 
give  us  our  full  rights  with  other  nations  in  the  election  and 
payment  of  judges.  The  fourth  reservation  prevents  the 
Court  from  being  altered  without  our  consent. 

) The  fifth  reservation  embodies  a further  safeguard  recom- 
mended by  President  Coolidge  in  his  Message  to  Congress, 
December  3,  1924,  providing  that  the  United  States  be  not 
bound  by  an  advisory  opinion  unless  the  United  States  has 
joined  in  the  request  for  it. 

Why  the  Pepper-Borah  Plans  are  Impractical 

All  of  these  reservations  are  practical,  since  they  will 
require  no  fundamental  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Court.  Amendments,  on  the  other  hand,  such  as  are  pro- 
posed by  Senators  Pepper  and  Borah,  would  require  imani- 
mous  consent,  usually  with  parhamentary  action,  on  the  part 
of  the  48  nations  now  in  the  Court  and  would  postpone  our 
adherence  indefinitely. 

Regarding  Senator  Pepper’s  new  proposals,  published 
August  2,  1925,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  they 


4 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

would  ever  be  accepted  by  the  other  nations  for  the  simple 
reason  that  they  are  not  devised  primarily  in  the  interest 
of  the  World  Court  but  to  reconcile  the  irreconcilables. 

Regarding  Senator  Borah’s  proposals  that  the  Senate 
combine  entrance  into  the  World  Court  with  the  codification 
of  international  law,  and  that  the  Comt  be  deprived  of  the 
valuable  function  of  rendering  judicial  advisory  opinions, 
the  latter  effort,  if  successful,  would  weaken  the  Court,  and 
the  former  would  postpone  our  adherence  to  it  by  perhaps  a 
generation. 

One  Step  at  a Time 

The  effort  to  weave  the  outlawry  of  war  into  our  adher- 
ence to  the  World  Court  is  unsound  for  many  reasons,  one 
being  that  there  are  not  64  Senators  that  will  vote  for  the 
Borah  method  of  outlawing  war.  Few  people,  in  or  out  of 
the  Senate,  have  yet  given  his  specific  plan  for  ridding  the 
world  of  war  serious  consideration,  although  the  purpose 
of  his  measure  is  universally  popular.  The  ingenious  Pan- 
American  proposal  to  banish  war  by  taking  the  profit  out 
of  it  for  nations  may  prove  more  fruitful. 

Progress  is  made  a step  at  a time.  The  last  step  cannot 
come  first.  After  we  have  finally  achieved  the  relatively 
short  step  of  joining  the  World  Court,  for  which  we  have 
striven  for  three  years,  it  will  be  time  to  decide  in  the  light 
of  public  opinion  what  the  second  step  in  the  outlawry  of 
war  will  be. 

Why  Stand  by  the  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  Plan? 

It  is  the  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  proposal  that  now  has 
the  support  of  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
Senate  regardless  of  party.  It  is  the  Harding-Hughes- 
Coolidge  proposal  that  has  the  President’s  support  as  the 
“most  practical”  proposal  before  the  country.  It  is  the 
Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  proposal  that  received  the  en- 
dorsement of  both  party  platforms  in  1924.  It  is  the  Hard- 
ing-Hughes-Coolidge proposal  that  has  been  approved  over- 
whelmingly by  the  peace  forces  of  the  nation,  as  the  amazing 
list  of  organizations  that  have  endorsed  it  indicates.  It  is 
the  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  proposal,  and  no  other,  that 
can  pass  the  Senate  this  winter,  and  should  therefore  have 
the  support  of  every  lover  of  peace  who  hopes  ultimately  to 
outlaw  war. 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 


5 


COOLIDGE  LEADS  FIGHT 

Bans  Partisanship  from  Ottr  Foreign  Relations 

Pending  before  the  Senate  is  a proposal  that  this  Government 
give  its  support  to  the  permanent  court  of  international 
JUSTICE.  . . . This  is  not  a partisan  question.  It  should  not 
assume  an  artificial  importance.  The  Court  is  merely  a convenient 
instrument  of  adjustment  to  which  we  could  go,  but  to  which  we 
could  not  be  brought.  . . . 

Partisanship  has  no  place  in  our  foreign  relations.  As  I wish  to 
see  a court  established,  and  as  the  proposal  'presents  the  only  practical 
plan  on  'which  ■many  nations  have  ever  agreed,  though  it  may  not  meet 
every  desire,  I therefore  commend  it  to  the  favorable  consideration 
of  the  Senate,  with  the  proposed  reservations  clearly  indicating 
our  refusal  to  adhere  to  the  League  of  Nations. — Annual  Message 
December  6,  1923. 

Deems  Harding-Hughes  Proposal  the  Most 
Practical  One 

As  a result  of  American  initiative,  there  is  already  in  existence 
The  Hague  Tribunal,  which  is  equipped  to  function  wherever  arbi- 
tration seems  desirable,  and  based  in  part  on  that  and  in  part  on 
the  League,  there  is  the  international  court  of  justice,  which 
is  already  functioning.  . . . Other  plans  for  a World  Court  have 
been  broached,  but  up  to  the  present  time  this  has  seemed  to  me  the 
most  'practical  one. — Address  to  Associated  Press,  New  York  City, 
April  22,  1924. 

Opposes  Material  Changes  in  Harding-Hughes  Plan 

More  than  a year  ago  President  Harding  proposed  that  the 
Senate  should  authorize  our  adherence  to  the  protocol  of  the 
PERMANENT  COURT  OP  INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE  with  Certain  Con- 
ditions. His  suggestion  has  already  had  my  approval.  On  that 
I stand.  I should  not  oppose  other  reservations,  but  any  material 
changes  which  would  not  probably  receive  the  consent  of  the  many 
other  nations  would  be  impracticable. — Address  at  Arlington  National 
Cemetery,  May  30,  1924. 

Believes  National  Safety  Points  to  Court 

While  there  are  those  who  think  we  would  be  exposed  to  peril 
by  adhering  to  this  Court,  I am  unable  to  attach  great  weight  to 
their  arguments  ....  I am  one  of  those  who  believe  we  would 
be  safer  and  that  we  would  be  meeting  our  duties  better  by  sup- 


6 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 


porting  it  and  making  every  possible  use  of  it.  I feel  confident 
that  such  action  would  make  a greater  America,  that  it  would  be 
productive  of  a higher  and  finer  national  spirit,  and  of  a more 
complete  national  life. — Address  at  Arlington  National  Cemetery, 
May  30,  1924. 

Says  World  Court  Expresses  Our  Faith  in  the 
Rule  of  Reason 

As  peace  means  fundamentally  a reign  of  law,  we  propose  to 
become  a member  of  the  permanent  court  op  international 
JUSTICE.  Such  action  would  do  much  to  indicate  our  determination 
to  restrain  the  rule  of  force  and  solidify  and  sustain  the  rule  of 
reason  among  nations. — Address  of  Acce-ptance,  Washington,  D.  C., 
August  14,  1924. 

Suggests  One  Additional.  Reservation  Covering 
Advisory  Opinions 

Our  representatives  took  a leading  part  in  those  conferences 
which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  The  Hague  Tribunal  and 
later  in  providing  for  a permanent  court  of  international 
JUSTICE.  I believe  it  would  be  for  the  advantage  of  this  country 
and  helpful  to  the  stability  of  other  nations  for  us  to  adhere  to  the 
protocol  establishing  that  Court  upon  the  conditions  stated  in  the 
recommendation  which  is  now  before  the  Senate  and  further  that  our 
country  shall  not  he  bound  by  advisory  opinions  which  may  be  rendered 
by  the  Court  upon  questions  which  we  have  not  voluntarily  submitted 
for  its  judgment.  [This  has  been  made  Reservation  5.  See  bill.] — 
Message  to  Congress,  December  3,  1924. 

Declares  No  Petty  Subterfuges  Should  Outweigh 
Duty  of  Adherence  to  World  Court 

In  conformity  with  the  principle  that  a display  of  reason  rather 
than  a threat  of  force  should  be  the  determining  factor  in  the 
intercourse  among  nations,  we  have  long  advocated  the  peaceful 
settlement  of  disputes  by  methods  of  arbitration  and  have  nego- 
tiated many  treaties  to  secure  that  result.  The  same  considerations 
should  lead  to  our  adherence  to  the  permanent  court  of  inter- 
national JUSTICE. 

WTiere  great  principles  are  involved,  where  great  movements  are 
under  way  which  promise  much  for  the  welfare  of  humanity  by 
reason  of  the  very  fact  that  many  other  nations  have  given  such 
movements  their  actual  support,  we  ought  not  to  withhold  our  own 
sanction  because  of  any  small  and  inessential  difference,  hut  only  upon 
the  ground  of  the  most  important  and  compelling  fundamental  reasons. 
We  cannot  barter  away  our  independence  or  our  sovereignty,  but 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  7 

we  ought  to  engage  in  no  refinements  of  logic,  no  sophistries  and  no 
subterfuges  to  argue  away  the  undoubted  duty  of  this  country  by 
reason  of  the  might  of  its  numbers,  the  power  of  its  resources,  and 
its  position  of  leadership  in  the  world,  actively  and  comprehensively 
to  signify  its  approval  and  to  bear  its  full  share  of  the  responsibility 
of  a candid  and  disinterested  attempt  at  the  establishment  of  a 
tribunal  for  the  administration  of  even-handed  justice  between 
nation  and  nation.  The  weight  of  our  enormous  influence  must  be 
cast  upon  the  side  of  a reign  not  of  force  but  of  law,  and  trial  not 
by  battle  but  by  reason. — Inaugural  Address,  March  4,  1925. 

Says  We  Must  Act  Before  Too  Late 

Those  who  lived  and  saw  and  felt  and  knew  these  things  will 
pass  on.  They  will  be  succeeded  by  others  to  whom  a distorted 
picture  of  glory  and  heroism  will  make  its  appeal.  . . It  is  for  the 
generation  which  saw  and  survived  to  devise  measures  of  preven- 
tion. If  we  fail  in  this,  we  shall  deserve  all  the  disaster  which  will 
surely  be  visited  upon  us  because  of  our  failure. — Address  to  dele- 
gates of  Conference  on  Cause  and  Cure  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C., 
January  24,  1925, 

Relies  on  Forces  Already  Successful  Within  States 

It  is  not  thinkable  that  the  forces  are  available  and  adequate  to 
maintain  order  within  the  limit  of  a great  state  or  nation,  and  yet 
incapable  of  adaptation  to  the  international,  intergovernmental 
differences  which  grow  into  the  causes  of  war.  Nor  is  it  believable 
that  a world-wide  public  opinion  which  frowned  upon  war  would 
be  defied  by  any  nation,  however  powerful. 

Interdependence  of  peoples  and  nations  becomes  more  marked 
with  every  year.  None  can  stand  alone.  None  dare  court  isola- 
tion. None  may  risk  ill  opinion  of  civilization.  It  is  through 
the  establishment,  then,  of  means  for  formulating  and  promulgating 
honest  judgments  and  matured  public  opinion  of  the  world,  that 
I believe  that  we  shall  advance  towards  assured  peace. 

Thus  shall  we  begin  the  actual  outlawry  of  war.  Thus  shall  we 
lay  a foundation  for  that  wider,  more  intimate,  more  vital  coopera- 
tion which  at  last  will  make  the  nations  truly  neighbors.  Thus, 
without  sacrificing  the  independence  of  nations,  or  the  quality  of 
their  varied  cultures,  we  shall  guide  humanity  toward  a realization 
of  the  noble  conception  of  the  brotherhood  of  man. — Address  to 
delegates  of  Conference  on  the  Cause  and  Cure  of  War,  January 
24,  1925. 


8 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

TEXT  OF  SENATE  RESOLUTION  5 

\Miereas  the  President,  under  date  of  February  24,  1923,  trans- 
mitted a message  to  the  Senate  accompanied  by  a letter  from  the 
Secretary  of  State,  dated  February  17,  1923,  asking  the  favorable 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  the  adhesion  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  to  the  protocol  of  December  16,  1920,  of  signatirre  of 
the  statute  for  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice,  set 
out  in  the  said  message  of  the  President  (without  accepting  or 
agreeing  to  the  optional  clause  for  compulsory  jurisdiction  con- 
tained therein),  upon  the  conditions  and  understandings  hereafter 
stated,  to  be  made  a part  of  the  instrument  of  adhesion:  Therefore 
be  it 

Resolved  (two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concurring).  That 
the  Senate  advise  and  consent  to  the  adhesion  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  to  the  said  protocol  of  December  16,  1920,  and  the 
adjoined  statute  for  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice 
(without  accepting  or  agreeing  to  the  optional  clause  for  compulsory 
jurisdiction  contained  in  said  statute),  and  that  the  signature  of 
the  United  States  be  affixed  to  the  said  protocol  subject  to  the 
following  reservations  and  understandings,  which  are  hereby  made 
a part  and  condition  of  this  resolution,  namely: 

1.  That  such  adhesion  shall  not  be  taken  to  involve  any  legal 
relation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  the  League  of  Nations 
or  the  assumption  of  any  obligations  by  the  United  States  under 
the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  constituting  part  1 of  the 
treaty  of  Versailles. 

2.  That  the  United  States  shall  be  permitted  to  participate 
through  representatives  designated  for  the  purpose  and  upon  an 
equality  with  the  other  States,  members,  respectively,  of  the 
council  and  assembly  of  the  League  of  Nations,  in  any  and  all 
proceedings  of  either  the  council  or  the  assembly  for  the  election  of 
judges  or  deputy  judges  of  the  Permanent  Court  of  International 
Justice  or  for  the  filling  of  vacancies. 

3.  That  the  United  States  will  pay  a fair  share  of  the  expenses 
of  the  court  as  determined  and  appropriated  from  time  to  time  by 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

4.  That  the  statute  for  the  Permanent  Court  of  International 
Justice  adjoined  to  the  protocol  shall  not  be  amended  without  the 
consent  of  the  United  States. 

5.  That  the  United  States  shall  be  in  no  manner  bound  by  an 
advisory  opinion  of  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice 
not  rendered  pursuant  to  a request  in  which  it,  the  United  States, 
shall  expressly  join  in  accordance  with  the  statute  for  the  said 
court  adjoined  to  the  protocol  of  signature  of  the  same  to  which 
the  United  States  shall  become  signatory. 

' The  signature  of  the  United  States  to  the  said  protocol  shall  not 
be  affixed  until  the  powers  signatory  to  such  protocol  shall  have 
indicated,  through  an  exchange  of  notes,  their  acceptance  of  the 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  9 

foregoing  reservations  and  understandings  as  a part  and  a condi- 
tion of  adhesion  by  the  United  States  to  the  said  protocol. 

WHO  OPPOSE  IT 

Senators  Pepper  and  Borah  are  the  surviving  leaders  of 
the  opposition  to  America’s  adherence  to  the  World  Court 
on  the  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  plan. 

Both  Senators  oppose  it  first  as  opponents  of  the  League 
of  Nations.  Borah  deems  it  inconsistent  to  accept  the 
Court  as  one  of  the  “fruits  of  the  League  ” “ and  still  continue 
to  fight  the  League.”  His  statement  on  this  point  may  be 
found  in  the  New  York  Times  of  April  27,  1923. 

The  answer  is  that  a step  on  a road  does  not  bring  the 
traveller  to  the  road’s  end.  The  World  Court  is  being  kept 
a distinct  issue  by  means^of  the  reservations  drawn  for  the 
purpose.  We  agree,  in  other  words,  to  feel  our  way  in  the 
realm  of  international  cooperation  one  step  at  a time. 

The  United  States  at  last  accounts  had  been  represented 
in  some  way  on  19  commissions  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
What  does  this  signify?  It  signifies  that  we  have  taken  19 
steps  towards  fuU  participation  in  the  League  and,  it  may  be 
added,  without  protest  as  yet  from  any  quarter.  Each  step 
has  been  deemed  fully  justifiable  on  its  own  merits.  Yet 
no  one  knows  better  than  Senator  Borah  that  this  journey 
is  not  ended  and  that  actual  membership  in  the  League  will 
be  very  carefully  considered  by  the  Senate  as  a distinct 
issue,  quite  regardless  of  the  logic  of  the  19  steps  aheady 
taken.  If  determined  upon,  our  membership  will  be  care- 
fully safeguarded  by  reservations  just  as  has  been  our 
proposal  for  adherence  to  the  World  Court. 

Both  Senators  oppose  the  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  plan 
again  because  the  World  Court  has  the  power  of  rendering 
judicial  advisory  opinions  and  these  Senators  want  this 
power  embed.  Senator  Pepper  is  reported  in  the  New  York 
Times  of  August  2,  1925,  as  demanding  that  “the  other 
signatories,  48  in  number,  shall  agree  by  a statute  to  the 
Comt  that . . . there  shall  be  no  secret  and  advisory  opinions 
except  under  well  defined  conditions.”  Senator  Borah 
seems  to  want  to  take  away  the  function  altogether. 

The  importance  of  the  Comt’s  retaining  this  function  of 
“preventive  adjudication”  is  discussed  at  some  length  below. 
To  anticipate  the  argument  in  a word,  the  advisory  opinions 
rendered  by  the  World  Comt  are  not  “ secret  ” and  they  are 


10  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

not  mere  “opinions.”  They  are  fully  argued  and  docu- 
mented decisions  rendered  publicly  by  the  full  Court  on  a 
written  question  exactly  stated  after  due  notice  to  the  United 
States  and  the  members  of  the  League  before  conflict  breaks 
out.  Such  a fimction  is  obviously  important  since  it  may 
prevent  wars. 

Senator  Borah’s  third  and  most  appealing,  though  not 
most  convincing,  argument  against  the  World  Court  plan 
is  that  it  is  not  good  enough.  He  would  like  to  see  this 
Court  abolished  in  order  that  the  world  may  start  afresh 
with  a code  of  international  law  as  the  first  step  and  a new 
and  perfect  Court  to  administer  it.  He  would  give  the  new 
Court  power  even  to  summon  the  United  States  Government 
before  it  to  answer  for  violations  of  the  code. 

On  this  point  one  must  agree  with  Senator  Pepper’s 
criticism  of  the  Borah  plan  as  quoted  in  the  New  York  Times 
of  August  2, 1925 : 

“I  do  not  want  to  enter  into  any  controversy  with  Senator 
Borah,”  Mr.  Pepper  said,  “but  I would  be  sorry  to  see  our 
adherence  to  the  Court  wait  upon  clarification  of  interna- 
tional law.  The  Court  with  Americans  in  it  could  take  large 
part  in  clarification.  Senator  Borah  seems  to  insist  upon 
perfecting  codification  before  adhering,  which  would  be  the 
work  of  generations.” 


Republican  and  Democratic  Leaders  Assail  Policy  of 
Irreconcilables 

Senator  Lenroot  (Rep.)  of  Wisconsin  and  Senator  Swanson 
(Dem.)  of  Virginia,  as  spokesmen  for  more  than  two-thirds 
of  the  Senate,  took  up  the  cudgels  against  Senator  Pepper 
immediately  after  he  had  revealed  his  plan  of  campaign. 
Senator  Lenroot,  according  to  the  New  York  Times  of 
August  5,  1925,  said: 

There  seems  to  be  an  organized  effort  to  misrepresent  the  situa- 
tion in  the  Senate  regarding  the  World  Court. 

The  opposition,  knowing  that  ratification  of  the  Protocol  estab- 
lishing the  World  Court  cannot  be  defeated  by  a direct  vote,  are 
attempting  to  make  the  public  and  Senators  believe  that  the  only 
way  by  which  favorable  action  can  be  secured  is  by  compromise 
with  those  who  are  opposed  to  it. 

* Their  hope  is  that  Republican  Senators  wiU  agree  to  such  com- 
promises upon  reservations  that  on  the  final  vote  the  Democrats 
wiU  vote  against  the  resolution  and  thus  defeat  it. 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 


11 


Seventt-Five  Senatoes  for  Haeding-Hughes-Cooiadge 

Plan 

I am  satisfied  that  there  are  at  least  seventy-five  Senators  who 
will  vote  for  ratification  of  the  Protocol  with  the  Harding-Hughes- 
Coolidge  reservations  if  they  have  an  opportunity,  and  the  only 
danger  lies  in  compromise  upon  reservations  that  may  defeat  it. 

Both  parties  in  their  platforms  have  declared  for  the  Court  as 
recommended  by  President  Coolidge.  This  is  a plain  and  unequivo- 
cal pledge,  and  is  subject  to  but  one  construction. 

While  this  is  not  a partisan  question,  because  both  parties  are 
in  accord  upon  it,  I hope  and  believe  that  a majority  of  the  Eepub- 
lican  Senators  will  support  the  party  platform,  in  the  making  of 
reservations  and  in  the  final  action,  but  if  they  should  not,  a suf- 
ficient number  of  Republicans  will  join  with  the  Democrats,  who 
are  in  accord  with  the  pledge,  in  determining  what  the  reservations 
shall  be. 

As  a member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  as  a 
Senator  on  the  floor,  I shall  do  everything  within  my  power  to 
carry  out  the  pledge  of  the  Republican  Party  and  will  enter  into 
no  compromise  with  the  enemies  of  the  Court  that  will  in  any  way 
conflict  with  the  contract  the  party  has  made  with  the  people. 

Swanson  Supports  Leneoot’s  Position 

Senator  Swanson  of  Virginia,  ranking  Democrat  on  the 
Foreign  Relations  Committee,  said  today  he  expected  to  see 
the  W orld  Court  accepted  if  the  President  enforced  the  terms 
he  himself  had  laid  down,  according  to  an  Associated  Press 
despatch  in  the  New  Y ork  Times  of  August  5, 1925.  He  added : 

Over  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  are  willing  to  accept  President 
Coolidge’s  recommendations,  provided  the  President  will  adhere 
to  them  and  not  consent  to  reservations  urged  by  the  opponents 
of  the  League  of  Nations  and  of  the  World  Court  who  are  now 
insisting  that  the  pathway  shall  be  made  easy  to  them  and  who  will, 
should  the  President  traffic  with  them,  bring  the  World  Court  into 
disrepute. 

U.  S.  House  of  Representatives  for  the  Harding- 
Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Proposal 

The  House  of  Representatives  on  March  3,  1925,  by  a 
recorded  vote  of  301  to  28  adopted  the  following  resolution 
endorsing  the  Hardin  g-Hughes-Coohdge  World  Court  pro- 
posal; 

Whereas  a World  Court,  known  as  the  Permanent  Coiut  of 
International  Justice,  has  been  established  and  is  now  functioning 
at  The  Hague;  and 


12 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 


Whereas  the  traditional  policy  of  the  United  States  has  earnestly 
favored  the  avoidance  of  war  and  the  settlement  of  international 
controversies  by  arbitration  or  judicial  processes;  and 

Whereas  this  Court  in  its  organization  and  probable  develop- 
ment promises  a new  order  in  which  controversies  between  nations 
will  be  settled  in  an  orderly  way  according  to  principles  of  right 
and  justice;  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Representatives  desires  to  express 
its  cordial  approval  of  the  said  court  and  an  earnest  desire  that  the 
United  States  give  early  adherence  to  the  protocol  establishing 
the  same,  with  the  reservations  recommended  by  President  Harding 
and  President  Coolidge: 

Resolved  further.  That  the  House  expresses  its  readiness  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  enactment  of  such  legislation  as  will  necessarily 
follow  such  approval. — Congressional  Record,  vol.  66,  p.  5413. 

Republican  and  Democratic  Platforms,  1924,  Bind 
Parties  Tightly 

The  Republican  Party  reaflirms  its  stand  for  agreement  among 
the  nations  to  prevent  war  and  preserve  peace.  As  an  immediate 
step  in  this  direction  we  indorse  the  permanent  court  of  inter- 
national justice  and  favor  the  adherence  of  the  United  States 
to  this  tribunal  as  recommended  by  President  Coolidge. — Republi- 
can Campaign  Text  Booh,  1924,  p.  67. 

It  is  of  supreme  importance  to  civilization  and  to  mankind  that 
America  be  placed  and  kept  on  the  right  side  of  the  greatest  moral 
question  of  all  time,  and  therefore  the  Democratic  Party  renews 
its  declaration  of  confidence  in  the  ideal  of  world  peace,  the  League 
of  Nations  and  the  world  court  of  justice  as  together  constituting 
the  supreme  effort  of  the  statesmanship  and  religious  conviction 
of  our  time  to  organize  the  world  for  peace. — Democratic  Campaign 
Book,  1924,  p,  40. 

MAIN  FACTS  ABOUT  THE  WORLD  COURT 

The  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  is  the  formal 
title  of  the  Court  popularly  called  the  “World  Court.”  It 
is  a permanent  body  comprising  eleven  judges  with  four 
deputy  judges  who  act  as  substitutes  for  absent  judges. 

How  Superior  to  Hague  Tribunal 

The  World  Court  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Hague 
Tribunal,  whose  oflBcial  name  is  the  Permanent  Court  of 
Arbitration,  by  the  fact  that  it  has  a fixed  personnel  like 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  13 

our  own  Supreme  Coiui — though  elected  for  nine  years  and 
not  for  life — whereas  the  Hague  Tribunal  is  merely  a list 
of  132  names  from  which,  in  case  a dispute  arises,  an  Arbitra- 
tion Board  of  not  over  five  members  may  be  specially  chosen 
to  hear  and  determine  the  controversy.  The  Hague  Tribunal 
could  never  become  a Supreme  Court  of  the  World,  while  the 
World  Court  is  potentially  exactly  that. 

Its  Judges  Not  National  Advocates  but 
Impartial  Jurists 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  judges  constituting 
the  World  Court  do  not  represent  the  nations  from  which 
they  come  any  more  than  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  represent  the  States  from  which  they 
come.  On  the  other  hand,  the  election  of  more  than  one 
judge  of  any  particular  nationality  is  forbidden,  and  the 
statute  prescribes  that  the  Court  as  a whole  should  “repre- 
sent the  main  forms  of  civilization  and  the  principal  legal 
systems  of  the  world.”  This  explains  why  a jurist  from  the 
United  States,  John  Bassett  Moore,  is  a member  of  the 
Court  despite  the  fact  that  the  United  States  does  not  adhere 
to  it. 

As  an  apparent  concession  to  national  feeling,  it  is  pro- 
vided that  when  a case  is  being  tried  which  concerns  a 
nation  from  which  no  national  is  on  the  Court,  it  shall  have 
the  privilege  of  appointing  one  to  sit  with  the  other  judges 
on  that  case. 


How  THE  Judges  are  Elected 

The  choice  of  11  judges  from  65  nations  is  on  the  face  of 
it  an  insoluble  problem  in  a world  where  jealous  nationalism 
is  as  prevalent  as  it  is  today.  It  proved  insoluble  at  the 
Second  Hague  Conference  in  1907,  where  the  United  States 
delegation  sought  in  vain  to  secure  the  setting  up  of  this 
very  Court  and  failed  because  it  lacked  an  answer  to  this 
question.  There  is  a further  complication  in  the  fact  that 
the  great  powers,  including  the  United  States,  have  always 
expected  to  be  assured  membership  on  the  Court  regardless 
of  how  the  little  powers  fared,  and  this  attitude  has  aroused 
bitter  antagonism  and  resistance. 

The  double  problem  of  satisfying  all  nations  and  par- 
ticularly the  great  powers  was  solved  finally  through  the 


14  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

mechanism  of  the  Council  and  the  Assembly  of  the  League 
of  Nations.  On  one  day  in  nine  years — the  next  election 
will  be  in  1930 — these  two  bodies  sit  as  electoral  bodies,  and 
by  the  terms  of  our  proposal  the  United  States  would  be 
represented  in  both  bodies  and  on  equal  terms  wdth  the 
League  members. 

Nominations  will  be  before  them,  made  by  the  national 
groups  in  the  Hague  Tribunal  on  the  basis  of  their  intimate 
knowledge  supplemented  by  other  expert  advice  as  to  the 
leading  jurists  of  their  respective  countries  and  of  the  world. 
At  the  first  election  on  September  14,  1921,  85  nominations 
were  considered. 

The  Council  and  the  Assembly  ballot  independently  first 
for  the  eleven  judges.  They  compare  their  slates  after  the 
ballot,  and  only  those  names  that  are  in  both  lists  are  de- 
clared elected.  Thus  the  Assembly,  on  which  all  nations 
are  or  may  be  represented,  has  a check  upon  the  Council  in 
which  the  gTeat  powers  have  predominant  influence,  and  the 
great  powers,  in  turn,  have  a check  upon  the  more  repre- 
sentative Assembly. 

Probably  only  a part  of  the  11  judges  would  be  elected  in 
the  first  ballot.  Accordingly,  a second  ballot  and  a third 
ballot  are  provided  for.  The  same  procedure  holds  for  the 
four  deputy  judges. 

If  after  three  ballots  the  Court  has  not  been  completed,  a 
Joint  Conference  Committee  of  six,  representing  both 
electoral  bodies,  may  be  chosen,  whose  duty  it  will  be  to 
complete  the  Court  if  possible.  If  this  fails,  the  Court 
may  complete  its  own  roster. 

Secretary  Hughes,  in  an  address  before  the  American 
Society  of  International  Law  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  April  27, 
1923,  declared  that  “without  a solution  of  this  sort  which 
will  enable  the  great  powers  to  have  a check  upon  the 
smaller  powers  and  the  latter  to  have  a check  upon  the 
former,  a permanent  comt  cannot  be  established.  ...  A 
wdse  practicality  has  enabled  the  nations  to  attain  the  ideal 
of  an  impartial  court.” 

Does  the  Couht  Represent  Europe  or  the  World? 

The  judges  now  on  the  Comt  come  from  the  Netherlands, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Brazil,  Denmark,  United  States, 
Cuba,  Spain,  Japan,  Italy  and  Switzerland.  The  deputy 
judges  are  from  Yugoslavia,  Norway,  Rumania  and  China. 


Hardiiig-Hughes-Coulidge  World  Court  Measure  15 

Has  the  Court  Had  Cases? 

The  World  Court  was  opened  to  all  nations  on  May  12, 
1922.  It  had  rendered  ten  judicial  advisory  opinions  and 
five  judgments  up  to  May  1,  1925.  Both  functions  seem  to 
be  needed  and  to  be  appreciated. 


Difference  Between  Court  and  League 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked  whether  the  World  Court 
is  intended  to  be  a substitute  for  the  League  of  Nations. 
No  more  than  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is 
intended  to  be  a substitute  for  Congress.  The  League  of 
Nations  is  designed  to  promote  international  cooperation 
and  by  methods  of  conciliation  to  prevent  political  and 
economic  controversies  from  developing  into  wars.  The 
World  Comt  is  designed  to  deal  particularly  with  legal 
disputes  such  as  may  arise  over  the  interpretation  of  a treaty 
or  of  international  law  or  of  facts  that  may  be  breaches  of  an 
international  obligation.  Its  statute  provides  that  in 
rendering  decisions  it  shall  apply  international  conventions, 
international  custom,  the  general  principles  of  law  recognized 
by  civilized  nations,  and  judicial  decisions  and  teachings  of 
the  most  highly  qualified  publicists  of  the  various  nations, 
as  subsidiary  means  for  determination  of  rules  of  law.  Thus 
it  will  be  one  factor  in  developing  international  law.  The 
League  will  be  another  by  processes  of  legislation  ratified. 


Is  It  a World  Court  or  a League  Court? 

Let  Secretary  Hughes  answer:  “It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  there  will  be  no  world  comt  if  this  Court  cannot  be 
made  one,  and  whether  or  not  it  is  to  be  in  the  fullest  sense  a 
world  comt  depends  upon  our  own  action”  (Address  before 
the  American  Society  of  International  Law,  April  27,  1923). 


Is  THE  World  Court  a “Servant”  of  the  League? 

Let  Secretary  Hughes  answer  again:  “It  is  not  a servant 
of  the  League.  . . . The  Court  is  an  independent  judicial 
body  with  appropriate  judicial  functions  and  abundant 
safeguards  for  their  proper  discharge”  (from  the  same 
address). 


16  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

Does  the  British  Empire  Have  “Seven  Votes”  in  the 
Election  of  Judges? 

Secretary  Hughes  discusses  this  also.  He  points  out  that 
among  the  52  votes  in  the  Assembly  (now  55)  Ireland,  South 
Africa,  Australia,  Canada,  India  and  New  Zealand  have  votes 
like  other  nations,  as  they  should,  but  that  in  the  Council 
the  British  Empire  has  but  one  vote  as  would  the  United 
States;  and  the  Council  has  a check  on  the  Assembly. 
Moreover,  here,  if  anywhere,  Anglo-Saxon  nations  will  be 
friends,  not  foes. 


Does  the  Fact  That  the  League  Pays  the  Salaries  of 
THE  Judges  Give  it  Control  of  the  Court? 

No  more  than  the  fact  that  Congress  appropriates  money 
for  the  salaries  of  the  judges  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  gives  Congress  control  over  its  decisions  on  contested 
legislation. 


What  Is  the  Optional  Clause  for  Compulsory 
Jurisdiction? 

The  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  proposal  specifically  refuses 
to  accept  what  is  called  the  “Optional  Clause  for  Compul- 
sory Jurisdiction.”  This  clause,  when  adopted,  provides 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  is  accepted  in  advance 
in  interpreting  treaties,  etc.,  in  relation  to  any  other  State 
which  accepts  the  same  obligation.  Twenty-three  nations 
had  on  May  1, 1925,  accepted  this  “compulsory  jurisdiction.” 
Our  caution  in  not  doing  so  imitates  that  of  the  other  great 
powers,  but  both  in  England  and  in  France  there  are  strong 
movements  in  favor  of  its  adoption. 

Is  the  World  Court  “Private  Counsel”  for  the  League 
OF  Nations  in  Rendering  Advisory  Opinions? 

An  examination  of  the  judicial  procedure  in  rendering 
advisory  opinions  described  below  and  of  the  ten  advisory 
opinions  already  rendered  will  convince  any  open-minded 
student  that  such  interpretation  would  grossly  and  in- 
excusably misrepresent  the  nature  of  the  World  Court’s 
advisory  opinions. 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  17 

THE  WORLD  COURT’S  ADVISORY  OPINIONS 

The  Court  shall  be  competent  to  hear  and  determine  any 
dispute  of  an  international  character  which  the  parties  thereto 
submit  to  it.  The  Court  may  also  give  an  advisory  opinion  upon 
any  dispute  or  question  referred  to  it  by  the  Council  or  by  the 
Assembly. — Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations,  Art.  14. 

The  Rules  of  Court  That  Govern  Advisory  Opinions 
Permit  No  Secrecy 

Senator  Pepper  in  his  statement  to  the  press  published 
August  2, 1925,  attacked  the  World  Court’s  advisory  opinions 
as  “secret.” 

The  best  answer  is  the  publication  of  its  Rules  of  Court 
governing  its  advisory  opinions.  They  are  Articles  71-74. 
“No  secrecy  attaches  to  the  procedure  at  any  stage,”  says 
Prof.  Manley  O.  Hudson,  “and  the  opinion  is  always  read 
in  open  court  and  given  the  notoriety  of  wide  publication.” 

Art.  71.  Advisory  opinions  shall  be  given  after  deliberation  by 
the  full  Court.  The  opinions  of  dissenting  judges  may,  at  their 
request,  be  attached  to  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

Art.  72.  Questions  upon  which  the  advisory  opinion  of  the  Court 
is  asked  shall  be  laid  before  the  Court  by  means  of  a written  request, 
signed  either  by  the  President  of  the  Assembly  or  the  President  of 
the  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations,  or  by  the  Secretary-General 
of  the  League  under  instructions  from  the  Assembly  or  the  Council. 
The  request  shall  contain  an  exact  statement  of  the  question  upon 
which  an  opinion  is  required,  and  shall  be  accompanied  by  all 
documents  likely  to  throw  light  upon  the  question. 

Art.  73.  The  Registrar  shall  forthwith  give  notice  of  the  request 
for  an  advisory  opinion  to  the  members  of  the  Court,  and  to  the 
Members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  through  the  Secretary-General 
of  the  League,  and  to  the  States  mentioned  in  the  Annex  to  the 
Covenant.  Notice  of  such  request  shall  also  be  given  to  any 
international  organizations  which  are  likely  to  be  able  to  furnish 
information  on  the  question. 

Art.  74.  Any  advisory  opinion  which  may  be  given  by  the  Court 
and  the  request  in  response  to  which  it  was  given,  shall  be  printed 
and  published  in  a special  collection  for  which  the  Registrar  shall 
be  responsible. 

World  Court’s  Advisory  Opinions  Judicial  in  Character 

The  leading  authority  on  the  subject  of  advisory  opinions 
is  John  Bassett  Moore,  the  American  member  of  the  Court. 
In  his  essay  on  the  World  Court  in  his  recent  book,  “Inter- 
national Law  and  Some  Current  Illusions,”  he  says,  y“  The 


18  Harding-Hughes-CooUdge  World  Court  Measure 

Court  has  not  thought  it  feasible  to  fill  a dual  role,  acting 
at  one  moment  as  a judicial  body  rendering  judgments  on 
international  differences,  and  at  the  next  moment  as  a board 
of  counselors  giving  private  and  ex-parte  advice  on  such 
matters.  Indeed,  an  auditor  or  spectator  would  detect  no 
difference  between  a proceeding  for  a judgment  and  a pro- 
ceeding for  an  advisory  opinion.” 

Commenting  on  this  question,  J.  P.  Chamberlain,  Profes- 
sor of  Pubhc  Law  in  Columbia  University,  says  in  a letter 
to  the  New  York  Times  of  July  19,  1925;  “The  Court  does 
not  act  as  a counsel  of  the  League;  it  acts  judicially  after 
full  hearing.” 

Example  of  World  Cotjbt’s  Advisory  Opinions 

Professor  Chamberlain  in  the  letter  to  the  New  York  Times 
already  quoted  describes  briefly  the  procedure  in  a typical 
case  requiring  an  advisory  opinion.  He  chooses  the  dispute 
between  France  and  Great  Britain  over  the  rights  of  France 
in  Tunis  and  Morocco.  He  says: 

The  Court  followed  its  regular  course,  the  British  and  French 
Governments  submitted  cases  and  countercases,  exactly  as  if  they 
were  parties  in  a suit,  their  counsel  were  heard,  briefs  submitted, 
and  the  Court  finally  gave  its  opinion  in  a public  sitting. 

The  advantages  of  this  procedure  in  questions  of  law  and  inter- 
pretation of  treaties  in  which  several  nations  were  concerned 
are  that  all  the  parties  interested  are  afforded  an  opportunity  to 
appear  and  argue  their  views,  and  that  the  question  may  be  pre- 
sented promptly  after  the  need  for  its  decision  has  appeared  without 
making  necessary  an  open  conflict  between  two  States.  The  Court 
proceeds  in  a judicial  manner,  gives  public  notice  of  the  question, 
hears  argument  of  counsel  on  both  sides,  has  briefs  submitted, 
receives  all  the  evidence  which  the  industry  of  the  interested 
parties  can  assemble,  and  delivers  its  opinion  in  public. 

Nations  Now  in  Court  Will  Not  Abandon  Advisory 
Opinions,  Hudson  Reports 

The  sentiment  in  Europe  is  unanimous  for  maintaining 
the  World  Court’s  power  to  render  judicial  advisory  opin- 
ions, says  Prof.  Manley  O.  Hudson,  writing  from  Geneva, 
in  a letter  to  Hamilton  Foley  of  Pittsburgh,  Penna.,  and 
quoted  by  him  in  a communication  to  the  New  York  Times 
of  August  8,  1925 : 

I have  consulted  many  people  about  the  proposal  of  Senators 
and  others  in  the  United  States  that  the  advisory  opinions  of  the 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  19 

Court  be  abolished.  The  unanimous  opinion  which  I have  found  is 
to  the  effect  that  this  would  constitute  a very  unfortunate  and 
backward  step.  It  is  only  in  small  circles  in  America  that  the 
Court  is  viewed  as  the  legal  adviser  to  the  Council  of  the  League. 
In  Europe,  among  all  the  people  I have  met,  the  advisory  opinions 
are  looked  upon  as  a necessary  exercise  of  the  judicial  function, 
and  most  people  find  it  difficult  .to  envisage  the  successful  working 
of  the  League’s  machinery  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  disputes 
without  this  aid.  I am  satisfied  from  what  I have  learned  that  the 
various  Governments  would  be  unwilling  to  give  up  this  function 
of  the  Court,  and  most  of  the  people  with  whom  I have  talked 
find  it  wholly  impossible  to  understand  why  there  should  be  any 
such  tendency  in  that  direction  in  America. 

Advisory  Opinions  Rendered  by  Our  Supreme  Courts 

While  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  lacks  the 
power  of  rendering  an  advisory  opinion,  the  Supreme  Courts 
of  several  States  have  this  power.  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  Maine,  Rhode  Island,  Florida,  Colorado  and 
South  Dakota  have  successively  incorporated  this  provision 
in  their  constitutions.  We  quote  from  Prof.  Manley  O. 
Hudson’s  article  on  “Advisory  Opinions  of  National  and 
International  Courts,”  1924,  the  following  interesting  ac- 
count of  the  growth  of  the  practice  in  the  United  States; 

The  justices  of  the  Massachusetts  court  had  the  duty  to  give 
advisory  opinions  under  the  Massachusetts  constitution  of  1780. 
The  first  opinion  was  given  in  1781.  And  to  date  approximately 
one  hundred  and  forty  advisory  opinions  have  been  given.  [One 
was  given  this  year.]  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  many  of  these 
opinions  have  related  to  the  constitutionality  of  proposed  legisla- 
tion, and  the  justices  have  frequently  forestalled  the  necessity  of 
declaring  acts  of  the  legislature  unconstitutional  by  giving  opinions 
in  advance 

From  Massachusetts,  the  provision  for  advisory  opinions  was 
copied  into  the  constitutions  of  other  states.  It  was  adopted  in 
the  New  Hampshire  constitution  of  1784,  in  the  Maine  constitu- 
tion of  1820,  in  the  Rhode  Island  constitution  of  1842,  and  it  still 
maintains  in  aU  of  these  states.  The  second  Missouri  constitution 
also  adopted  the  provision  in  1865,  but  it  was  dropped  from  the 
third  constitution  of  1875.  The  practice  was  also  adopted  in  the 
Florida  constitution  in  1868,  in  the  Colorado  constitution  of  1886 
and  the  South  Dakota  constitution  of  1889. 

Some  Organizations  That  Endorse  World  Court 

American  Bar  Association,  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  Federal  Council  of 


20 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 


Churches,  World  Alliance  for  International  Friendship  through  the 
Churches,  General  Federation  of  Women’s  Clubs,  National  Board 
of  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association,  National  Congress  of 
Parents  and  Teachers,  National  League  of  Women  Voters,  National 
Service  Star  Legion,  American  Association  of  University  Women, 
American  Federation  of  Teachers,  National  Education  Association, 
National  Association  of  Credit  Men,  United  Society  of  Christian 
Endeavor,  American  Unitarian  Association,  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  U.  S.  A.,  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  New  York  and  New 
England,  Northern  Baptist  Church,  Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis,  National  Council  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  Peace 
Association  of  Friends  in  America,  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Friends,  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (South),  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
U.  S.,  Reformed  Church,  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  Church  of 
the  New  Jerusalem  (Swedenborgian),  Conference  of  Foreign 
Mission  Boards,  Council  of  Women  for  Home  Missions,  United 
Synagogue  of  America,  American  Society  of  International  Law, 
National  Economic  League,  Union  League  Club,  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers,  International  Kindergarten  Union, 
Modern  Woodmen  of  America,  League  of  Nations  Non-Partisan 
Association,  International  Missionary  Union,  Baptist  World  Alli- 
ance, Association  to  Abolish  War,  National  W'^oman’s  Christian 
Temperance  Union,  National  Council  of  Jewish  Women,  Girl’s 
Friendly  Society  in  America,  National  Council  of  Women, 
Women’s  International  League  for  Peace  and  Freedom,  World 
Peace  Foundation. 

Warns  Against  “Eleventh  Hour”  Amendments 

The  executive  committee  of  the  National  League  of 
Women  Voters  issued  to  the  press  on  July  13,  1925,  the 
following  statement  warning  its  members  against  “eleventh 
hour”  amendments  to  the  World  Court  resolution  and 
specifically  against  the  proposals  of  Senators  Pepper  and 
Borah. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  the  National  League  of  Women 
Voters  asks  all  of  its  members  to  fix  their  attention  on  one  date — 
December  17 — when  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  will  bring  up 
for  action  the  resolution  designed  to  make  the  United  States  a 
member  of  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice. 

The  League  of  Women  Voters  for  over  two  years  has  educated 
itself  not  only  to  the  importance  of  this  step  to  the  peace  of  the 
world  but  also  to  the  difficulties  to  be  removed  at  home  before  the 
treaty  is  signed.  It  supports  the  measure  as  proposed  by  Presidents 
Harding  and  Coolidge  and  by  Secretary  Hughes  and  does  not  favor 
amendments  which  are  likely  to  kill  the  proposal  or  delay  its  pas- 
sage indefinitely. 


Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure  21 

The  question  has  been  asked — will  the  League  of  Women  Voters 
accept  in  place  of  the  resolution  and  reservations  offered  by  Mr. 
Harding,  Mr.  Hughes  and  Mr.  Coolidge  such  proposals  as  have 
been  made  by  Senator  Pepper  and  Senator  Borah?  Is  it  willing 
to  support  the  organizing  of  a new  Court  around  the  old  Hague 
tribunal?  Does  it  insist  that  no  advisory  opinions  shall  be  asked 
of  the  Court  for  fear  of  causing  it  to  be  politically  dominated? 
To  all  these  questions  the  answer  is  “No.” 

Having  examined  the  proposal  for  so  long  a time,  the  answers 
to  the  two  main  questions,  “Does  entry  into  the  Permanent  Court 
of  International  Justice  commit  the  United  States  to  entry  into 
the  League  of  Nations?”  and  “Is  the  Court  an  instrument  for 
peace?”  are  found  to  be  “No”  and  “Yes”  respectively.  The 
League  of  Women  Voters  is  not  prepared  at  this  eleventh  hour 
to  accept  reservations  which  will  defeat  the  entry  of  the  United 
States  into  the  Court  and  will  be  impatient  with  lukewarm  leader- 
ship and  long  drawn-out  and  pointless  debate  on  the  part  of  Sena- 
tors who  wish  to  be  counted  as  friends  of  the  proposal. 

Elihu  Root  Favoes  America’s  Adherence 

This  court  is  the  latest  institution  wrought  out  by  the  civilized 
world’s  general  public  opinion  against  war,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  effect  to  that  opinion.  It  is  an  essential  and  indispensable 
institution  for  the  effectiveness  of  that  opinion  and  the  proposal 
that  the  United  States  take  part  in  supporting  the  court  should 
be  welcomed  as  an  opportunity  by  all  the  people  who  have  been 
talking  in  favor  of  abolishing  war  and  preventing  war  and  out- 
lawing war,  but  who  have  not  as  yet  arrived  at  any  practical  steps 
tending  in  that  direction. — “Steps  Toward  Preserving  Peace,” 
World  Peace  Foundation  Pamphlets,  Vol.  VHI,  No.  4,  1925. 

Reference  Material 

Important  reference  material  may  be  had  on  application  to : 

The  World  Peace  Foundation,  40  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston, 
Mass. 

The  American  Association  for  International  Conciliation, 
405  West  117th  Street,  New  York  City. 

Excellent  brief  pamphlets  and  leaflets  may  be  had  from ; 

The  League  of  Nations  Non-Partisan  Association,  6 East 
39th  St.,  New  York  City. 

The  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  105  East  22nd  Street, 
New  York  City. 

The  American  Peace  Award,  565  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York 
City. 

The  National  Council  for  Prevention  of  War,  532  17th  St., 
N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 


22  Harding-Hughes-Coolidge  World  Court  Measure 

Reference  Book 

“The  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice,”  Manley 

O.  Hudson.  A collection  of  Prof.  Hudson’s  essays  reprinted 
(unedited)  from  periodicals  from  January,  1922,  to  January, 
1925,  with  extensive  bibliography. 

PRACTICAL  SUGGESTIONS 

1.  Call  on  your  Senators  while  they  are  at  home. 

2.  Telegraph  or  write  them  when  they  are  in  Washington. 

3.  Discuss  the  World  Court  situation  in  your  club,  lodge 
and  church — in  aU  of  them — and  move  that  resolutions  be 
sent  to  the  President  and  your  two  Senators  endorsing 
adherence  to  the  World  Court  on  the  Harding-Hughes- 
Coohdge  terms. 

4.  Organize  a World  Court  Committee  to  arrange  a 
community  meeting  this  fall. 

(a)  Secure  representation  of  all  sympathetic  organiza- 
tions. 

(5)  Appoint  a program  committee  to  secure  speakers 
and  music,  using  local  talent  if  possible. 

(c)  Appoint  a finance  committee  to  raise  the  money 

required. 

(d)  Appoint  a publicity  committee  to  advertise  the 

meeting  thoroughly. 

(e)  Present  resolutions  endorsing  the  Harding-Hughes- 

Coolidge  World  Court  plan  and  send  as  above. 

5.  See  that  similar  meetings  are  held  in  surrounding  towns. 

6.  Distribute  copies  of  this  pamphlet  and  other  material 
where  they  will  be  read. 

7.  Reprint  in  leaflet  form  for  wide  local  distribution  what 
the  President  has  said  on  the  World  Court  and  other  im- 
portant sections  of  this  pamphlet. 

8.  Write  a letter  on  the  subject  to  your  local  paper  for 
publication,  using  this  and  other  material. 

9.  Start  your  plans  now. 


OUR  TIMES  CALL  TO  ACTION 

All  nations,  including  the  United  States,  are  prepar- 
ing for  more  wars.  The  Williamstown  Institute  of 
Politics  has  been  considering  this  summer  the  grave 
situation  in  Europe.  A dozen  new  Alsace  Lorraines 
have  been  set  up  by  the  Versailles  Treaty  where  there 
was  one  before.  The  new  nationalism  of  the  subject 
States  of  Asia  and  North  Africa  is  shaking  the  founda- 
tions of  empires.  The  relations  between  the  United 
States  and  Japan  have  not  been  improved  by  our 
Japanese  Exclusion  Act  and  the  drift  on  the  Pacific 
is  towards  a dangerous  balance  of  power.  The  same 
is  true  in  the  two  Americas,  Dr.  L.  S.  Rowe,  Director 
of  the  Pan-American  Union,  has  gravely  reported. 

Hatreds  are  more  violent  than  in  1914;  causes  of  war 
are  more  numerous;  weapons  are  many  times  more 
deadly.  Winston  Churchill  says  that  we  are  passing 
rapidly  through  the  blessed  respite  of  exhaustion, 
offering  to  the  nations  a final  chance  to  avert  what  may 
well  be  a general  doom.” 

“It  is  for  the  generation  which  saw  and  survived 
to  devise  measures  of  prevention.”  We  must  not 
drift,  as  the  nations  did  before  1914,  until  it  is  too 
late.  Now  is  the  time  to  stop  the  next  war. 

The  World  Court  is  universally  regarded  as  the  first 
step  towards  permanent  security  and  peace.  It  is  not 
perfect.  With  the  Hughes-Coolidge  reservations  the 
step  is  indeed  a short  one,  yet  this  step  must  be  taken  if 
other  steps  are  to  follow  and  if  ultimately  war  is  to  be 
outlawed  and  permanent  peace  to  be  achieved. 


He  Relies  on  Loyalty  to  Him  of 
Candidates  for  Election  in  1926 
to  Back  World  Tribunal. 


From  Special  to  The  New  York  Times 

SWAMPSCOTT,  Mass.,  Aug.  13,  1925.— It 
became  known  in  official  circles  today  that 
President  Coolidge  feels  more  confident  than 
at  any  previous  time  of  the  adoption  by  the 
Senate  of  the  World  Court  protocol. 

The  visit  of  Senator  Moses  this  week  and  re- 
ports which  have  come  to  him  privately  from 
different  Senators,  as  well  as  surveys  made  by 
Committees  interested  in  the  Court,  all  go  to 
give  the  President  hope  that  this  one  of  his 
three  leading  policies  will  be  carried  into  effect 
in  the  next  Congress. 

President  Coolidge  is  going  to  call  for  affirm- 
ative action  on  the  World  Court  in  no  uncer- 
tain terms,  according  to  those  who  have  dis- 
cussed the  subject  with  him  in  the  last  ten  days. 

Though  the  President  was  thought  to  be 
lukewarm  in  his  support  of  the  World  Court 
some  months  ago,  that  is  not  his  attitude  now. 
He  has  become  an  aggressive  advocate  of  the 
Court  with  reservations  protecting  American 
interests  and  freeing  the  United  States  from  any 
obligations  to  the  League  of  Nations.  Another 
reservation  which  he  wants  is  a statute  defining 
what  the  Court  can  do  with  respect  to  advis- 
ory opinions. 

President  Coolidge  is  letting  the  Republican 
Senators  know  of  the  platform  declaration  of 
1924  on  the  World  Court  and  they  know  that 
Mr.  Coolidge  is  a stickler  for  carrying  out  his 
pledges  to  the  people. 


